Criminal Case (Jerusalem) 54589-02-17 State of Israel v. Oshri Sharon - part 159

A separate question is whether Shochat acted in favor of Matrix.  Matrix claimed that Shohat acted in everything related to the Oranim project in order to do a favor to Shahar, with whom he had close friendships.  This claim has a certain basis in the evidence (see paragraph 688 above, regarding the close friendship between Shachar and Shohat; see also the testimony of Shachar, who stated in various places that he "asked for a favor" from Shohat, p. 3559, paras. 14-16, p. 3509, paras. 3-4).  The accuser presented other cases in which Shochat allegedly submitted price quotes to a particular customer at the request of another employee of Wei (Oz Ben Mayor), or asked the same employee to submit his own high bid to another customer (P/513, P/516, P/517).  In doing so, she sought to undermine the claim that Shochat acted in light of his close friendship with Shahar.  The other cases that the accuser pointed out were not included in the indictment.  The factual picture with respect to them was not fully clarified (see Shohat's testimony, p. 6930, paras. 12 ff.; p. 6932, para. 11, where he explained that this was a case in which the customer did not contact other suppliers at all to receive offers).  It is difficult to learn from them for our purposes.  In any event, as has been ruled on the legal level, an action that is both for the benefit of the organ and for the benefit of the corporation can still bind the corporation (see paragraph 19 above).  However, with regard to the question of Matrix's best interests, Matrix's case is different from that of the other defendant companies – Wee, Harel and Triple C.  The coordination arrangement in the eleventh indictment, which relates to the Oranim project, is the only charge attributed to Matrix among the eighteen charges in the indictment.  No coordination was attributed to Matrix other than his own.  It is not attributed to her that she was a party to the general coordination arrangement in the first indictment or to any of the arrangements made after it.  Matrix was not even a party to the "give and take" correspondence between Shachar and Gilad and was staged about a month before the Oranim Task Force (P/388).  The evidence shows that Matrix had relatively little activity in the face of civil appeals compared to the other companies (Shkanevsky, p. 1115, s. 22 - p. 1116, s. 6, with Matrix they worked the least).  With regard to the Oranim project, Shachar testified that Shochat did not ask for any consideration – and it also appears that he did not receive any consideration – in the framework of the privileged coordination (p. 3528, paras. 9-15; even though such consideration is not one of the elements of the offense, see also the Ben Dror (District) case at paragraph 574).  Shahar testified that Shohat did not really work in a civil appeal and that Wei and Matrix did not really work with the same customers, a matter that radiates to the potential for a give-and-take relationship, and for consideration versus a waiver (p. 3528, paras. 18-19; p. 3580, paras. 19-21; p. 3581, paras. 1-4; p. 3580, s. 4-7, Shahar does not recall that they approached other joint projects).  Shahar further testified that unlike the relationship between Wei and Harel, where one company gave up on one project in order to win another project with mutual consideration, this was not the relationship with Matrix (p. 3581, paras. 5-16).  This has implications for the question of whether in the alleged arrangement Shochat acted in favor of Matrix and in view of the potential for future consideration (the accuser pointed to other cases, which were not included in the indictment, P/513, P/516, P/517, as a basis for the give-and-take relationship in the submission of proposals, even though the full picture with respect to these other matters has not been fully clarified, see also the argument at p. 6975, paras. 15 ff.).  The accuser claimed that Shohat acted in Matrix's favor.  In this context, she argued, including on the basis of Shohat's words, that the mere submission of a bid to the Oranim Alliance could give Matrix a foothold in IAI, that presenting a representation of competition and reducing costs would lead to the customer turning to Matrix in the future, and that Shohat tried to reach the second place among the bidders in a way that would allow him to provide in the event that the first bidder was disqualified (p. 6779, s. 27 - p. 6780,  S. 2, p. 6924, S. 15-21).  These arguments have limited weight.  Shohat's testimony on these matters raised questions.  Moreover, the claims do not explain how the arrangement for coordinating bids – as opposed to the submission of a bid for bidding – was in Matrix's favor.  In the totality of the circumstances, it is possible and doubtful whether Shochat acted – even if it was proven that he was a party to the coordination arrangement as alleged – did not act in Matrix's favor (see, the Ben Dror (District) case, at paragraph 857, where it was held that even when we are dealing with an organ, there is still a need to examine, in the circumstances of each specific charge, whether there is even a reasonable doubt that there is a possibility anchored in the evidence that the action was not in the best interest of the company).  However, in view of the conclusion in the case of Shohat, there is no need to rule on this matter, and the matter is said above necessity.